8.3.5 versus 7.6
Moderators: Site Moderators, FAHC Science Team
8.3.5 versus 7.6
Is the version 8.3.5 folding faster than 7.6 on Ubuntu?
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 7938
- Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:41 pm
- Hardware configuration: Mac Pro 2.8 quad 12 GB smp4
MacBook Pro 2.9 i7 8 GB smp2 - Location: W. MA
Re: 8.3.5 versus 7.6
No.
The client doesn't do any of the actual folding work, just handles WU downloads and uploads and provides monitoring and control functions. The actual work is done by the downloaded folding cores and v8 uses the same ones as v7.
The client doesn't do any of the actual folding work, just handles WU downloads and uploads and provides monitoring and control functions. The actual work is done by the downloaded folding cores and v8 uses the same ones as v7.
iMac 2.8 i7 12 GB smp8, Mac Pro 2.8 quad 12 GB smp6
MacBook Pro 2.9 i7 8 GB smp3
-
- Site Moderator
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:33 am
- Location: San Francisco, CA
- Contact:
Re: 8.3.5 versus 7.6
V8 is faster on Apple Silicon, because the client and cores are compiled native.
-
- Site Moderator
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:33 am
- Location: San Francisco, CA
- Contact:
Re: 8.3.5 versus 7.6
Still no GPU folding on macOS.
OpenMM now has a Metal3 plugin, but I don't think anyone has tried to build a mac fahcore, let alone tested it.
The client would need code to look for and whitelist Metal gpus.
There might also be different args to pass to such a core.
Don't hold your breath. It may never happen.
OpenMM now has a Metal3 plugin, but I don't think anyone has tried to build a mac fahcore, let alone tested it.
The client would need code to look for and whitelist Metal gpus.
There might also be different args to pass to such a core.
Don't hold your breath. It may never happen.
Re: 8.3.5 versus 7.6
Thanks for your answers. I thought it was an update of the client and the core.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 7938
- Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:41 pm
- Hardware configuration: Mac Pro 2.8 quad 12 GB smp4
MacBook Pro 2.9 i7 8 GB smp2 - Location: W. MA
Re: 8.3.5 versus 7.6
To clarify, the v7 client doe not have the necessary options to identify an Apple Silicon processor to the Assignment and Work Servers to download the native core. So the Intel core ends up being downloaded and used when a CPU WU is processed with the v7 client running on macOS. It does work well with a large fraction of the performance of the native core while running under Rosetta 2.
iMac 2.8 i7 12 GB smp8, Mac Pro 2.8 quad 12 GB smp6
MacBook Pro 2.9 i7 8 GB smp3
-
- Site Moderator
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:33 am
- Location: San Francisco, CA
- Contact:
Re: 8.3.5 versus 7.6
With bonus points, the difference in PPD can be significant.
I’m not running v7 anymore, and projects vary wildly. But I believe I’m getting +25% PPD vs intel cores under Rosetta.
I’m not running v7 anymore, and projects vary wildly. But I believe I’m getting +25% PPD vs intel cores under Rosetta.
-
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2020 2:37 pm
Re: 8.3.5 versus 7.6
I can confirm the difference between similar projects from V7 to V8 on a M2 Mac mini is 48% increased PPD so nothing to laugh at. I will track it a bit more but my last V7 and first V8 project were the same so it is likely as close to 1:1 as possible.
Re: 8.3.5 versus 7.6
I'm thinking of getting the new M4 Mini, so of course i'm wondering what the WU/PPD looks like. I see you mention using the M2 Mini, and just had a look at your numbers in https://folding.extremeoverclocking.com ... =&u=930268 Surely they're not from just that one machine?!favrepeoria wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 12:40 amI can confirm the difference between similar projects from V7 to V8 on a M2 Mac mini is 48% increased PPD so nothing to laugh at. I will track it a bit more but my last V7 and first V8 project were the same so it is likely as close to 1:1 as possible.